Tag Archives: Green

I’m thinking that I may want to reconsider my position on things – it appears that the more radical and revolutionary you are, the more awards, employment opportunities, and face time you get.

Take for example Van Jones; although he was ousted from the White House for his trutherism, his radical ideological beliefs, namely being a self-professed communist, he is still receiving accolades from the liberal community. Van Jones will receive the coveted NAACP Image award this year and will also rejoin the Center for American Progress {be wary of that word Progress} a liberal “think” tank.

Van Jones calls himself an environmentalist, but more so in the sense of social justice; a term that many of us have been schooled in over the last couple of years. Social justice is just a nicer term used to confuse the masses that calls for the redistribution of wealth because of all the inequalities and unfairness in the world. Somewhere in life, I found that inequality and unfairness were part of human nature and it was up to an individual to make the most of what they were given and strive for success at every turn. I believe what I’m getting at is the “pursuit of happiness,” and there is a reason that the word pursuit is in the phrase; happiness isn’t handed to us – we have to earn respect and earn success.

Van Jones on the other hand, believes in the idea of welfare, hand outs and redistribution. He is a self-avowed communist who believes that nobody should be in jail, in fact they should all have green jobs to rehabilitate themseleves… something I’m more than a little skeptical of.

A little synopsis of what Van Jones is up to and some additional benefits that he is receiving:

In his first interview since stepping down as President Obama’s environmental adviser on Sept. 5, Jones said that a green jobs policy represents the best chance of both aiding poor Americans and bridging the political divide.

“When the food fight is over, there’s one spot of clean common ground in American politics, and that is the need for us to be leading on energy, clean energy, and for us as a country to be more secure with all those jobs,” Jones said Tuesday.

Jones, who has been consulting for companies and nonprofits on environmental issues, will start teaching at Princeton University in June and is rejoining the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, next month. On Friday, he will receive the NAACP’s President’s Award, for achievement in public service, the organization announced Tuesday.

Not surprising, another liberal ivy league school is also patting Van Jones on the back where he will teach and commute from DC to southern New Jersey.

The Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furore over stolen e-mails.

More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.

One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.

Funny, I think I might feel uncomfortable signing an oath to not speak ill of data I’m trying to research and prove as fact. This is not a settled science as much as anybody would like to claim it is. Theories exist and until they are proven as fact, they merely remain as theories – which is why science seems to take forever. The idea that man can play such a huge role in something as large as our globe and the climate is sheer arrogance and egoism. Climate change is a naturally occurring event that has ebbed and flowed for decades if not eons. The more emails, the more proof, the more information that comes out on this hoax, the better for everybody. That’s not to say that people who disagree do not believe in taking care of their environment, it just means that the skeptics have serious doubts as to the legitimacy of any type of man-made climate change. I’d like to know how liberals can rail against big oil but seem to have no problem when their own side of the aisle is in the tank for Green Corporations and have much to gain from cap and tax – how is that any different?

Signing a pledge such as the one above seems to worsen the credibility and cause conflict of interest among people who became scientists to prove and disprove based on factual evidence. What if, at some point, global warming is proven to be a hoax? Scientists should not be held down by some oath that forces them to hide significant information from the public. There are other times in history when people had to pledge their allegiance to a cause, and that usually didn’t end very well…

The problem with the petition as a form is also a problem with the Met Office petition’s substance. The purpose of the petition is to shore up scientists’ authority by vouching for their integrity. But signing a loyalty oath under pressure from the government is itself a corrupt act. Anyone who signs this petition thereby raises doubts about his own integrity. And once again, the question arises: Why should any layman regard global warmism as credible when the “consensus” rests on political machinations, statistical tricks and efforts to suppress alternative hypotheses?

IMHO, any scientist who signs this petition has lost all credibility to be fair, reasonable, balanced, and able to report fact – not some fiction in which they signed onto.